- Table View
- List View
Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face (Routledge Communication Series)
by Dale HampleArguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face describes the process and products of face-to-face argument. Author Dale Hample presents arguing as a type of interpersonal interaction, rather than as a kind of text or a feature of a public speech. He focuses primarily on argument production, and explores the rhetorical and philosophical traditions of arguing, keeping as the volume's main focus the integration of arguing into the literatures on message production, conflict management, and interpersonal communication.Distinctive in its approach, this volume offers:*a synthesis of empirical research on situational and individual differences in arguing;*an exploration of argument frames--perceptions and expectations about arguing;*an examination of the conversational and rational natures of argument products;*a psychological description of inventional processes; and*a full chapter on the emotional experience of arguing.This unique work is appropriate for scholars and graduate students in argumentation, discourse, persuasion, conflict management, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and message production.
Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face (Routledge Communication Series)
by Dale HampleArguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face describes the process and products of face-to-face argument. Author Dale Hample presents arguing as a type of interpersonal interaction, rather than as a kind of text or a feature of a public speech. He focuses primarily on argument production, and explores the rhetorical and philosophical traditions of arguing, keeping as the volume's main focus the integration of arguing into the literatures on message production, conflict management, and interpersonal communication.Distinctive in its approach, this volume offers:*a synthesis of empirical research on situational and individual differences in arguing;*an exploration of argument frames--perceptions and expectations about arguing;*an examination of the conversational and rational natures of argument products;*a psychological description of inventional processes; and*a full chapter on the emotional experience of arguing.This unique work is appropriate for scholars and graduate students in argumentation, discourse, persuasion, conflict management, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and message production.
Arguing about Alliances: The Art of Agreement in Military-Pact Negotiations
by Paul PoastWhy do some attempts to conclude alliance treaties end in failure? From the inability of European powers to form an alliance that would stop Hitler in the 1930s, to the present inability of Ukraine to join NATO, states frequently attempt but fail to form alliance treaties. In Arguing about Alliances, Paul Poast sheds new light on the purpose of alliance treaties by recognizing that such treaties come from negotiations, and that negotiations can end in failure.In a book that bridges Stephen Walt's Origins of Alliance and Glenn Snyder's Alliance Politics, two classic works on alliances, Poast identifies two conditions that result in non-agreement: major incompatibilities in the internal war plans of the participants, and attractive alternatives to a negotiated agreement for various parties to the negotiations. As a result, Arguing about Alliances focuses on a group of states largely ignored by scholars: states that have attempted to form alliance treaties but failed. Poast suggests that to explain the outcomes of negotiations, specifically how they can end without agreement, we must pay particular attention to the wartime planning and coordinating functions of alliance treaties. Through his exploration of the outcomes of negotiations from European alliance negotiations between 1815 and 1945, Poast offers a typology of alliance treaty negotiations and establishes what conditions are most likely to stymie the attempt to formalize recognition of common national interests.
Arguing about Asylum: The Complexity of Refugee Debates in Europe
by N. SteinerIn addressing the asylum controversy in Europe today, much of the literature assumes that asylum policies result from the struggle between national interest arguing to tighten asylum and humanitarianism arguing to loosen it. This book challenges this simple tug-of-war image by examining asylum in Germany, Switzerland, and Britain from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s. The findings reveal the complex and often counter-intuitive roles national interest, international norms, and morality play in shaping asylum. It forces us to reconsider how we think about asylum and to explore alternatives to conventional assumptions.
Arguing about Disability: Philosophical Perspectives
by Kristjana Kristiansen Simo Vehmas Tom ShakespeareDisability is a thorny and muddled concept - especially in the field of disability studies - and social accounts contest with more traditional biologically based approaches in highly politicized debates. Sustained theoretical scrutiny has sometimes been lost amongst the controversy and philosophical issues have often been overlooked in favour of the sociological. Arguing about Disability fills that gap by offering analysis and debate concerning the moral nature of institutions, policy and practice, and their significance for disabled people and society. This pioneering collection is divided into three sections covering definitions and theories of disability; disabled people in society and applied ethics. Each contributor – drawn from a wide range of academic backgrounds including disability studies, sociology, psychology, education, philosophy, law and health science – uses a philosophical framework to explore a central issue in disability studies. The issues discussed include personhood, disability as a phenomenon, social justice, discrimination and inclusion. Providing an overview of the intersection of disability studies and philosophical ethics, Arguing about Disability is a truly interdisciplinary undertaking. It will be invaluable for all academics and students with an interest in disability studies or applied ethics, as well as disability activists.
Arguing about Disability: Philosophical Perspectives
by Kristjana Kristiansen, Simo Vehmas and Tom ShakespeareDisability is a thorny and muddled concept - especially in the field of disability studies - and social accounts contest with more traditional biologically based approaches in highly politicized debates. Sustained theoretical scrutiny has sometimes been lost amongst the controversy and philosophical issues have often been overlooked in favour of the sociological. Arguing about Disability fills that gap by offering analysis and debate concerning the moral nature of institutions, policy and practice, and their significance for disabled people and society. This pioneering collection is divided into three sections covering definitions and theories of disability; disabled people in society and applied ethics. Each contributor – drawn from a wide range of academic backgrounds including disability studies, sociology, psychology, education, philosophy, law and health science – uses a philosophical framework to explore a central issue in disability studies. The issues discussed include personhood, disability as a phenomenon, social justice, discrimination and inclusion. Providing an overview of the intersection of disability studies and philosophical ethics, Arguing about Disability is a truly interdisciplinary undertaking. It will be invaluable for all academics and students with an interest in disability studies or applied ethics, as well as disability activists.
Arguing about Empire: Imperial Rhetoric in Britain and France, 1882-1956
by Martin Thomas Richard ToyeArguing about Empire analyses the most divisive arguments about empire between Europe's two leading colonial powers from the age of high imperialism to the post-war era of decolonization. Focusing on the domestic contexts underlying imperial rhetoric, Arguing about Empire adopts a case-study approach, treating key imperial debates as historical episodes to be investigated in depth. The episodes in question have been selected both for their chronological range, their variety, and, above all, their vitriol. Some were straightforward disputes; others involved cooperation in tense circumstances. These include the Tunisian and Egyptian crises of 1881-2, which saw France and Britain establish new North African protectorates, ostensibly in co-operation, but actually in competition; the Fashoda Crisis of 1898, when Britain and France came to the brink of war in the aftermath of the British re-conquest of Sudan; the Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911, early tests of the Entente Cordiale, when Britain lent support to France in the face of German threats; the 1922 Chanak crisis, when that imperial Entente broke down in the face of a threatened attack on Franco-British forces by Kemalist Turkey; World War Two, which can be seen in part as an undeclared colonial war between the former allies, complicated by the division of the French Empire between De Gaulle's Free French forces and those who remained loyal to the Vichy Regime; and finally the 1956 Suez intervention, when, far from defusing another imperial crisis, Britain colluded with France and Israel to invade Egypt — the culmination of the imperial interference that began some eighty years earlier.
Arguing about Empire: Imperial Rhetoric in Britain and France, 1882-1956
by Martin Thomas Richard ToyeArguing about Empire analyses the most divisive arguments about empire between Europe's two leading colonial powers from the age of high imperialism to the post-war era of decolonization. Focusing on the domestic contexts underlying imperial rhetoric, Arguing about Empire adopts a case-study approach, treating key imperial debates as historical episodes to be investigated in depth. The episodes in question have been selected both for their chronological range, their variety, and, above all, their vitriol. Some were straightforward disputes; others involved cooperation in tense circumstances. These include the Tunisian and Egyptian crises of 1881-2, which saw France and Britain establish new North African protectorates, ostensibly in co-operation, but actually in competition; the Fashoda Crisis of 1898, when Britain and France came to the brink of war in the aftermath of the British re-conquest of Sudan; the Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911, early tests of the Entente Cordiale, when Britain lent support to France in the face of German threats; the 1922 Chanak crisis, when that imperial Entente broke down in the face of a threatened attack on Franco-British forces by Kemalist Turkey; World War Two, which can be seen in part as an undeclared colonial war between the former allies, complicated by the division of the French Empire between De Gaulle's Free French forces and those who remained loyal to the Vichy Regime; and finally the 1956 Suez intervention, when, far from defusing another imperial crisis, Britain colluded with France and Israel to invade Egypt — the culmination of the imperial interference that began some eighty years earlier.
Arguing about Judaism: A Rabbi, a Philosopher and a Revealing Debate
by Peter Cave Dan Cohn-SherbokArguing about Judaism differs from other introductions to Judaism. It is unique, not solely in its engaging dialogues between a Reform rabbi and a humanist, atheist philosopher, but also in its presentation of and challenges to the fundamental religious beliefs of the Jewish heritage and their relevance to today’s Jewish community. The dialogues contain both Jewish narratives and philosophical responses, with topics ranging from the nature of God to controversies over sexual relations, animal welfare and the environment — from antisemitism to the state of Israel and Zionism. Although the rabbi and philosopher argue strongly, clearly enjoying the cut and thrust of debate, they do so with sensitivity, charm and respect, revealing the rich intricacies of the Jewish religion and contemporary Jewish life. While essential reading for those studying Judaism and Jewish history, the book aims to stimulate debate more generally amongst Jews and non-Jews, the religious and the atheist — all those with a general interest in religion and philosophy.
Arguing about Judaism: A Rabbi, a Philosopher and a Revealing Debate
by Peter Cave Dan Cohn-SherbokArguing about Judaism differs from other introductions to Judaism. It is unique, not solely in its engaging dialogues between a Reform rabbi and a humanist, atheist philosopher, but also in its presentation of and challenges to the fundamental religious beliefs of the Jewish heritage and their relevance to today’s Jewish community. The dialogues contain both Jewish narratives and philosophical responses, with topics ranging from the nature of God to controversies over sexual relations, animal welfare and the environment — from antisemitism to the state of Israel and Zionism. Although the rabbi and philosopher argue strongly, clearly enjoying the cut and thrust of debate, they do so with sensitivity, charm and respect, revealing the rich intricacies of the Jewish religion and contemporary Jewish life. While essential reading for those studying Judaism and Jewish history, the book aims to stimulate debate more generally amongst Jews and non-Jews, the religious and the atheist — all those with a general interest in religion and philosophy.
Arguing About Knowledge (Arguing About Philosophy Ser.)
by Ram NetaWhat is knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the value of knowledge? What can we know? Arguing About Knowledge offers a fresh and engaging perspective on the theory of knowledge. This comprehensive and imaginative selection of readings examines the subject in an unorthodox and entertaining manner whilst covering the fundamentals of the theory of knowledge. It includes classic and contemporary pieces from the most influential philosophers from Descartes, Russell, Quine and G.E. Moore to Richard Feldman, Edward Craig, Gilbert Harman and Roderick Chisholm. In addition, students will find fascinating alternative pieces from literary and popular work such as Lewis Caroll, Jorges Luis Borges and Paul Boghossian. Each article selected is clear, interesting and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they give an overview of the debate and outline the arguments of the papers. Arguing About Knowledge is an inventive and stimulating reader for students new to the theory of knowledge.
Arguing About Knowledge
by Duncan Pritchard Ram NetaWhat is knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the value of knowledge? What can we know? Arguing About Knowledge offers a fresh and engaging perspective on the theory of knowledge. This comprehensive and imaginative selection of readings examines the subject in an unorthodox and entertaining manner whilst covering the fundamentals of the theory of knowledge. It includes classic and contemporary pieces from the most influential philosophers from Descartes, Russell, Quine and G.E. Moore to Richard Feldman, Edward Craig, Gilbert Harman and Roderick Chisholm. In addition, students will find fascinating alternative pieces from literary and popular work such as Lewis Caroll, Jorges Luis Borges and Paul Boghossian. Each article selected is clear, interesting and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they give an overview of the debate and outline the arguments of the papers. Arguing About Knowledge is an inventive and stimulating reader for students new to the theory of knowledge.
Arguing About Law (PDF)
by Aileen Kavanagh John OberdiekArguing about Law introduces philosophy of law in an accessible and engaging way. The reader covers a wide range of topics, from general jurisprudence, law, the state and the individual, to topics in normative legal theory, as well as the theoretical foundations of public and private law. In addition to including many classics, Arguing About Law also includes both non-traditional selections and discussion of timely topical issues like the legal dimension of the war on terror. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they give an overview of the debate and outline the arguments of the papers, helping the student get to grips with both the classic and core arguments and emerging debates in: the nature of law legality and morality the rule of law the duty to obey the law legal enforcement of sexual morality the nature of rights rights in an age of terror constitutional theory tort theory. Arguing About Law is an inventive and stimulating reader for students new to philosophy of law, legal theory and jurisprudence.
Arguing About Metaethics (Arguing About Philosophy Ser.)
by Simon Kirchin Andrew FisherArguing about Metaethics collects together some of the most exciting contemporary work in metaethics in one handy volume. In it, many of the most influential philosophers in the field discuss key questions in metaethics: Do moral properties exist? If they do, how do they fit into the world as science conceives it? If they don’t exist, then how should we understand moral thought and language? What is the relation between moral judgement and motivation? As well as these questions, this volume discusses a wide range of issues including moral objectivity, truth and moral judgements, moral psychology, thick evaluative concepts and moral relativism. The editors provide lucid introductions to each of the eleven themed sections in which they show how the debate lies and outline the arguments of the papers. Arguing about Metaethics is an ideal resource text for students at upper undergraduate or postgraduate level.
Arguing About Metaethics (Arguing About Philosophy Ser.)
by Simon Kirchin Andrew FisherArguing about Metaethics collects together some of the most exciting contemporary work in metaethics in one handy volume. In it, many of the most influential philosophers in the field discuss key questions in metaethics: Do moral properties exist? If they do, how do they fit into the world as science conceives it? If they don’t exist, then how should we understand moral thought and language? What is the relation between moral judgement and motivation? As well as these questions, this volume discusses a wide range of issues including moral objectivity, truth and moral judgements, moral psychology, thick evaluative concepts and moral relativism. The editors provide lucid introductions to each of the eleven themed sections in which they show how the debate lies and outline the arguments of the papers. Arguing about Metaethics is an ideal resource text for students at upper undergraduate or postgraduate level.
Arguing About Science (Arguing About Philosophy)
by Alexander Bird James LadymanArguing About Science is an outstanding, engaging introduction to the essential topics in philosophy of science, edited by two leading experts in the field. This exciting and innovative anthology contains a selection of classic and contemporary readings that examine a broad range of issues, from classic problems such as scientific reasoning; causation; and scientific realism, to more recent topics such as science and race; forensic science; and the scientific status of medicine. The editors bring together some of the most influential contributions of famous philosophers in the field, including John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper, as well as more recent extracts from philosophers and scientists such as Ian Hacking, Stephen Jay Gould, Bas van Fraassen, Nancy Cartwright, and John Worrall. The anthology is organised into nine clear sections: science, non science and pseudo-science race, gender and science scientific reasoning scientific explanation laws and causation science and medicine probability and forensic science risk, uncertainty and science policy scientific realism and anti-realism. The articles chosen are clear, interesting, and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they provide an overview of the debate, as well as suggestions for further reading.
Arguing About Science (Arguing About Philosophy)
by Alexander Bird James LadymanArguing About Science is an outstanding, engaging introduction to the essential topics in philosophy of science, edited by two leading experts in the field. This exciting and innovative anthology contains a selection of classic and contemporary readings that examine a broad range of issues, from classic problems such as scientific reasoning; causation; and scientific realism, to more recent topics such as science and race; forensic science; and the scientific status of medicine. The editors bring together some of the most influential contributions of famous philosophers in the field, including John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper, as well as more recent extracts from philosophers and scientists such as Ian Hacking, Stephen Jay Gould, Bas van Fraassen, Nancy Cartwright, and John Worrall. The anthology is organised into nine clear sections: science, non science and pseudo-science race, gender and science scientific reasoning scientific explanation laws and causation science and medicine probability and forensic science risk, uncertainty and science policy scientific realism and anti-realism. The articles chosen are clear, interesting, and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they provide an overview of the debate, as well as suggestions for further reading.
Arguing about the World: The Work and Legacy of Meghnad Desai
by Mary Kaldor Polly VizardMeghnad Desai is Professor Emeritus of Economics at the LSE. He is founder of LSE Global Governance. From 1990-1995 he was Director of LSE's Development Studies Institute and has been at the LSE for over 30 years. In 1991, Meghnad Desai was created Lord Desai of St Clement Danes. His latest book is Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism.By enabling leading scholars and other public figures to explore the subjects that inspired them and Lord Desai, the publication will offer a fascinating exploration of progress on economics, human rights and development issues. The initiative identifies the continuing contribution made by Lord Desai, and the development of the themes highlighted by his work. Topics covered include: Econometric modelling, Macro economics and monetary theory, Development, Inequality, poverty and famines, Marx and political economy, Globalisation and global governance, History of economic ideas, and Nationalism in South Asia. Contributors include: Robert Skidelsky, Charles Goodhart, David Hendry, John Harriss, Purna Sen and others.
Arguing and Justifying: Assessing the Convention Refugees' Choice of Moment, Motive and Host Country (Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series)
by Robert F. BarskyThis is the first book of its kind to address the crucial issue of why people choose to make Convention refugee claims. It represents a substantial and original contribution primarily to the field of refugee studies but also applicable for a broader readership of political science, international studies, sociology, law, history and women’s studies. Furthermore, it theorizes the problems that face refugees by discussing the perception of the possible host countries. The conclusions of the book bear directly upon contemporary issues in refugee studies that suggest refugees move on the basis of (generally) extreme levels of persecution.
Arguing and Justifying: Assessing the Convention Refugees' Choice of Moment, Motive and Host Country (Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series)
by Robert F. BarskyThis is the first book of its kind to address the crucial issue of why people choose to make Convention refugee claims. It represents a substantial and original contribution primarily to the field of refugee studies but also applicable for a broader readership of political science, international studies, sociology, law, history and women’s studies. Furthermore, it theorizes the problems that face refugees by discussing the perception of the possible host countries. The conclusions of the book bear directly upon contemporary issues in refugee studies that suggest refugees move on the basis of (generally) extreme levels of persecution.
Arguing Counterterrorism: New perspectives (Routledge Critical Terrorism Studies)
by Daniela PisoiuThis book offers a multifaceted, analytical account of counterterrorism argumentative speech. Traditionally, existing scholarship in this field of research has taken a selective focus on issues and actors, concentrating mainly on US state discourse after 9/11. However, this approach ignores the fact that there was counterterrorism speech before 9/11, and that there are other countries and other actors who also actively engage in the counterterrorism discursive field, both within and outside of the Western world. Addressing several thematic, chronological and methodological gaps in the current literature, Arguing Counterterrorism offers a dynamic perspective on counterterrorism argumentative speech. Over the course of the volume, the authors tackle the following key issues: first, historical and cultural continuity and change. Second, the phenomenology of counterterrorism speech: its nature, instrumentalisation, implications and interactions between the various actors involved. The third theme is the anatomy of counterterrorism speech; namely its political, cultural and linguistic constitutive elements. Employing a multi-disciplinary framework, the authors explore these issues through a geographically and historically diverse range of case studies, resulting in a book that broadens the perspective of counterterrorism argumentation analysis. This book will be of much interest to students of critical terrorism studies, counterterrorism, discourse analysis, security studies and IR.
Arguing Counterterrorism: New perspectives (Routledge Critical Terrorism Studies)
by Daniela PisoiuThis book offers a multifaceted, analytical account of counterterrorism argumentative speech. Traditionally, existing scholarship in this field of research has taken a selective focus on issues and actors, concentrating mainly on US state discourse after 9/11. However, this approach ignores the fact that there was counterterrorism speech before 9/11, and that there are other countries and other actors who also actively engage in the counterterrorism discursive field, both within and outside of the Western world. Addressing several thematic, chronological and methodological gaps in the current literature, Arguing Counterterrorism offers a dynamic perspective on counterterrorism argumentative speech. Over the course of the volume, the authors tackle the following key issues: first, historical and cultural continuity and change. Second, the phenomenology of counterterrorism speech: its nature, instrumentalisation, implications and interactions between the various actors involved. The third theme is the anatomy of counterterrorism speech; namely its political, cultural and linguistic constitutive elements. Employing a multi-disciplinary framework, the authors explore these issues through a geographically and historically diverse range of case studies, resulting in a book that broadens the perspective of counterterrorism argumentation analysis. This book will be of much interest to students of critical terrorism studies, counterterrorism, discourse analysis, security studies and IR.
Arguing Development Policy: Frames and Discourses
by Raymond Apthorpe Des GasperThis collection shows how policy discourses in the fields of national and international developments are constructed and operate and how they can be analysed. Dominant discourses screen out certain aspects: they frame' issues to include some matters and typically exclude important others. More generally, different policy discourses construct the world in distinctive ways, through language that requires deconstruction and careful review.
Arguing Development Policy: Frames and Discourses
by Raymond Apthorpe Des GasperThis collection shows how policy discourses in the fields of national and international developments are constructed and operate and how they can be analysed. Dominant discourses screen out certain aspects: they frame' issues to include some matters and typically exclude important others. More generally, different policy discourses construct the world in distinctive ways, through language that requires deconstruction and careful review.
Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us
by Arianne Shahvisi'Brings cooling clarity to the heat of today's culture wars' Priyamvada Gopal, author of Insurgent Empire'Allows us to not only interrogate our own views, but to persuade others using reason and optimism. A must read' Aaron Bastani, author of Fully Automated Luxury CommunismCan white people be victims of racism?Is it sexist to say 'men are trash'?Should we worry about 'cancel culture'?Tired of having the same old arguments? Kicking yourself for not being able to justify your views? Wondering whether individuals can bring about meaningful change?Now imagine that instead of losing another hour of your life in a social media spat or knowing that the only way to make it through lunch was by biting your tongue, you could find a way to talk about injustice - and, just possibly, change someone's mind.Many of us know what we think about inequality, but flounder when asked for our reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate - especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. But living in echo chambers blunts our thinking, and if we can't persuade others, we have little hope of collectively bringing about change.In Arguing for a Better World, philosopher Arianne Shahvisi draws on examples from everyday life to show us how to work through a set of thorny moral questions, equipping us to not only identify our positions but to carefully defend them.'Logical, readable, authoritative . . . An everyday manual on how oppression came about, how it works, why it persists, and how to defeat it' Danny Dorling, author of Injustice: Why Social Inequality Still Persists and A Better Politics